: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.

I'm not implying that Ron Paul is Anarchist or that you should vote for an Anarchist, i'm just trying to counter those, mostly of the Anarchist camp, who say voting is useless and that you shouldn't do it on the grounds that your vote is just one among many.

Even if you vote for a third party that'll never win your vote still counts for something, at least here in Canada it does. It can make a difference as to how much funding a party gets, at least this is what I've heard so if you really like a particular party voting for them can actually get them more funding.

At 5/16/2011 1:12:42 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:Even if you vote for a third party that'll never win your vote still counts for something, at least here in Canada it does. It can make a difference as to how much funding a party gets, at least this is what I've heard so if you really like a particular party voting for them can actually get them more funding.

That then goes into public vs. private funding of parties (unless I misunderstood what you said, I don't now the facts). Exactly the kind of thing where you're starting down the slippery lope (from an Anarchist - or in this case generally Libertarian - point of view) if you participate in government at all.

"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)

At 5/16/2011 1:12:42 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:Even if you vote for a third party that'll never win your vote still counts for something, at least here in Canada it does. It can make a difference as to how much funding a party gets, at least this is what I've heard so if you really like a particular party voting for them can actually get them more funding.

Exactly, it is also a barganing chip for them. If a party only gets 2% of the vote, they, of course, are not even close to winning. However it shows that they have millions of supporters (in the US anyway, in Canada, 2% is just hundreds of thousands), and they can use that to suggest that they are not fringe but legit and worth taking a look at to try to get more members and grow.

At 5/16/2011 1:12:42 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:Even if you vote for a third party that'll never win your vote still counts for something, at least here in Canada it does. It can make a difference as to how much funding a party gets, at least this is what I've heard so if you really like a particular party voting for them can actually get them more funding.

That then goes into public vs. private funding of parties (unless I misunderstood what you said, I don't now the facts). Exactly the kind of thing where you're starting down the slippery lope (from an Anarchist - or in this case generally Libertarian - point of view) if you participate in government at all.

you gotta play the game to win the game.

There are really only two ways for Anarchy to take place.

1) Anarchists take off government and shut it down from within, through legit methods, like the current process.2) Anarchists start a revolution and shut down the government (violently, since the government will resist).

1) Anarchists take off government and shut it down from within, through legit methods, like the current process.2) Anarchists start a revolution and shut down the government (violently, since the government will resist).

Anarchism is a joke. I can't even take anarchists seriously anymore, lmao.

At 5/16/2011 1:12:42 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:Even if you vote for a third party that'll never win your vote still counts for something, at least here in Canada it does. It can make a difference as to how much funding a party gets, at least this is what I've heard so if you really like a particular party voting for them can actually get them more funding.

That then goes into public vs. private funding of parties (unless I misunderstood what you said, I don't now the facts). Exactly the kind of thing where you're starting down the slippery lope (from an Anarchist - or in this case generally Libertarian - point of view) if you participate in government at all.

you gotta play the game to win the game.

There are really only two ways for Anarchy to take place.

1) Anarchists take off government and shut it down from within, through flawed methods, like the current process.2) Anarchists start a revolution and shut down the government (violently, since the government will resist).

At 5/16/2011 1:06:35 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:who say voting is useless and that you shouldn't do it on the grounds that your vote is just one among many.

The idea that this is a particularly Anarchist argument is ridiculous anyway.

I never claimed that. I said that it is an argument made by those who happen to be Anarchist. I didn't say this is an Anarchist argument.

On the other hand, Anarchists may not want to vote in order not to participate in government any more than they're forced to.

I don't get why an Anarchist would oppose infiltrating the government from the inside. It seems like people believe the notion that Anarchists must attack from the oustide and never from the inside in fear of not being truly Anarchistic.

At 5/16/2011 1:12:42 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:Even if you vote for a third party that'll never win your vote still counts for something, at least here in Canada it does. It can make a difference as to how much funding a party gets, at least this is what I've heard so if you really like a particular party voting for them can actually get them more funding.

That then goes into public vs. private funding of parties (unless I misunderstood what you said, I don't now the facts). Exactly the kind of thing where you're starting down the slippery lope (from an Anarchist - or in this case generally Libertarian - point of view) if you participate in government at all.

you gotta play the game to win the game.

There are really only two ways for Anarchy to take place.

1) Anarchists take off government and shut it down from within, through established methods, like the current process.2) Anarchists start a revolution and shut down the government (violently, since the government will resist).

1) Anarchists take off government and shut it down from within, through legit methods, like the current process.2) Anarchists start a revolution and shut down the government (violently, since the government will resist).

Anarchism is a joke. I can't even take anarchists seriously anymore, lmao.

Debate an Anarchist putting up your political views vs. his and you will lose. Your politics are not sound and rest on indefensible principles or perhaps no principles at all.

1) Anarchists take off government and shut it down from within, through legit methods, like the current process.2) Anarchists start a revolution and shut down the government (violently, since the government will resist).

Anarchism is a joke. I can't even take anarchists seriously anymore, lmao.

Debate an Anarchist putting up your political views vs. his and you will lose. Your politics are not sound and rest on indefensible principles or perhaps no principles at all.

1) Anarchists take off government and shut it down from within, through legit methods, like the current process.2) Anarchists start a revolution and shut down the government (violently, since the government will resist).

Anarchism is a joke. I can't even take anarchists seriously anymore, lmao.

Debate an Anarchist putting up your political views vs. his and you will lose. Your politics are not sound and rest on indefensible principles or perhaps no principles at all.

on this site maybe. The judging is a little less than unbais.

I'm not talking about the judging. I'm saying that her arguments would probably be effectively and sufficiently refuted, not just that the Anarchist will get the most favorable votes.

1) Anarchists take off government and shut it down from within, through legit methods, like the current process.2) Anarchists start a revolution and shut down the government (violently, since the government will resist).

Anarchism is a joke. I can't even take anarchists seriously anymore, lmao.

Debate an Anarchist putting up your political views vs. his and you will lose. Your politics are not sound and rest on indefensible principles or perhaps no principles at all.

Incidentally, that's what I'm doing right now :)

"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)

1) Anarchists take off government and shut it down from within, through legit methods, like the current process.2) Anarchists start a revolution and shut down the government (violently, since the government will resist).

Anarchism is a joke. I can't even take anarchists seriously anymore, lmao.

Debate an Anarchist putting up your political views vs. his and you will lose. Your politics are not sound and rest on indefensible principles or perhaps no principles at all.

You seem to be too confident with the anarchists here. You see, not everyone wants to debate theoretical fairy tales. And debating whether or not personal freedom should be totally loose is better than debating "anarchy."

1) Anarchists take off government and shut it down from within, through legit methods, like the current process.2) Anarchists start a revolution and shut down the government (violently, since the government will resist).

Anarchism is a joke. I can't even take anarchists seriously anymore, lmao.

Debate an Anarchist putting up your political views vs. his and you will lose. Your politics are not sound and rest on indefensible principles or perhaps no principles at all.

on this site maybe. The judging is a little less than unbais.

Not really. In fact, we deliberately try to not vote on each other's debates (at least, try not to have multiple anarchists voting on another's debate), so that the debater isn't accused of winning because of bias/friends/etc.

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.

At 5/16/2011 1:06:35 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:who say voting is useless and that you shouldn't do it on the grounds that your vote is just one among many.

The idea that this is a particularly Anarchist argument is ridiculous anyway.

I never claimed that. I said that it is an argument made by those who happen to be Anarchist. I didn't say this is an Anarchist argument.

Oh, sure, I didn't mean to imply you said so, but I've seen it presented as if it's some unique Anarchist insight.

On the other hand, Anarchists may not want to vote in order not to participate in government any more than they're forced to.

I don't get why an Anarchist would oppose infiltrating the government from the inside. It seems like people believe the notion that Anarchists must attack from the oustide and never from the inside in fear of not being truly Anarchistic.

That depends on what those Anarchists view as their principles. It might well include not putting oneself in a position where one is complicit with government. Of course, coming from a non-Anarchist, that's purely speculation.

"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)

You seem to be too confident with the anarchists here. You see, not everyone wants to debate theoretical fairy tales. And debating whether or not personal freedom should be totally loose is better than debating "anarchy."

1) Anarchists take off government and shut it down from within, through legit methods, like the current process.2) Anarchists start a revolution and shut down the government (violently, since the government will resist).

Anarchism is a joke. I can't even take anarchists seriously anymore, lmao.

Debate an Anarchist putting up your political views vs. his and you will lose. Your politics are not sound and rest on indefensible principles or perhaps no principles at all.

on this site maybe. The judging is a little less than unbais.

Not really. In fact, we deliberately try to not vote on each other's debates (at least, try not to have multiple anarchists voting on another's debate), so that the debater isn't accused of winning because of bias/friends/etc.

The pool of voters is still offset in one direction. It would be like going to stormfront and debating multiculturalism. The members there will honestly think that you were completely destroyed and all your arguments adequately refuted. Doesn't make it accurate.

I'm currently doing a debate on anarchy vs X, and I fully expect to lose because of the voter makeup of the site, not because of the quality of the arguments.